School not being forthcoming with vital information - do I perservere or take the Data Protection Act route?

[Vallhala]

I need the minutes of an illegal interview carried out upon my daughter by a school. (Not one she currently attends, if that makes a difference).

I asked for the minutes repeatedly last week but unsurprisingly have got nowhere. I'm beyond caring if I piss the school off, but need to know whether it might be quicker to continue to demand the minutes and cc my MP into each email until the school capitulates or whether I should just send a Data Protection subject access request. I'm concerned that if I send a DP request there may be procedures which the school will conveniently decide to go through or even need to take and that this will make access to the minutes take even longer.

Has anyone any idea of how schools handle a DP request please, so I can decide which is the best way forward?

Thank you.

I CAN spell "persevere", honest!

Don't know, sorry, but Information Commissioner's site should have some guidance for you. Or Dept for Education. Try Teachernet as well.

Are you sure there are recorded minutes? I'm actually not sure what you mean by an illegal interview ... sorry not helpful

Sorry for the delay replying, I got distracted.

Good ideas, edam, and thank you I'll try those. :)

mrz, yes there were recorded minutes - I was in the "meeting" too and a member of the school's office staff sat in and took notes.

Ostensibly (according to a letter from the LA Directorate) it was to obtain a start date for DD to attend the school, look around and discuss her mid-year integration. However, none of that was even acknowledged when we got there and instead DD and I were subjected to quite an aggressive interview to establish her suitability for the school. This is in breach of the School Admissions Code and School Standards and Framework Act.

I'm having something of a run in with the school and LA about it and have raised a complaint with the Ombudsman - hence it would be helpful to have a copy of the minutes of the "meeting".

You need to force the issue, so ask formally by email under the Freedom of Information Act for the minutes. My gues will be you will get minutes that are very edited highlights of the conversation that took place, that is it will say nothing about all the questions asked.

Agree with Admissionm, both on the route to go and the likely result.

"an aggressive interview to establish her suitability for the school"

the mind boggles - what on earth did they ask?

They shouldn't have been asking anything, aggressive or othwerwise. Interviewing a child or the child's parents to determine whether or not the child is to be admitted is against the law. Vallahala has another thread which gives the full story.

Sorry - Vallhala - not sure where the extra A came from!

Thank you. (I quite like the extra A, very exotic!). :o

I'll send an email asking for the minutes tonight - it can be waiting for the Headmaster when he gets into his office tomorrow morning and in readiness for his meeting with the LA Inclusion Manager and the Education Officer, whatever he's supposed to be responsible for, tomorrow morning, when they plan to discuss DDs admission (or rather, lack of it atm). :o

And if the resulting document is as you, I and prh4 suspect it will be, admission, I shall hit the ruddy roof!

activate, the manner of the interview was rapid-fire and aggressive, on one occasion DD's words were seized upon and twisted. The whoie sorry tale, if you have time and patience for it, is HERE

Blimey I cannot believe how inept and stupid the LEA and school have been

Oh no!!!!

Should I have asked under the Freedom of Information Act?

I've just asked for the minutes under the Data Protection Act!

Help!

CarGirl, after the eff-up in waiting for a process which should have only taken about 3 weeks, even I thought that the LA wouldn't compound their ineptitude by permitting an illegal interview!

I think I may have an idea of why though. The Inclusion Manager from the LA who sat through the interview without challenging the procedure has only recently taken up the post, her predecessor being on maternity leave.

The current incumbent's job prior to taking up that of Inclusion Manager was that of "Locality Manager" for one of the areas within the county. In short, I think she hasn't a clue!

Val, I have no experience of school admissions but I don't think you can ask for personal information under Freedom of Information. FoI is so you can ask for information about a public body which is in the public interest.

Data Protection Act is the right one for requesting personal data.

That's what I thought ant, but admission mentioned the FOI Act.

(Maybe Admission is suffering from a glass of red too many syndrome overtiredness?! O: )

:o even!

When dealing with a public body if you make an FoI request and they conclude it should have been a DPA request it will be dealt with as if you had made a DPA request. Since an FoI request covers anything whereas a DPA request purely covers the information held about the person making the request I would generally recommend making an FoI request. However, I wouldn't stress over which type of request you've made. The outcome should be the same either way.

It's a Data Protection request but they do have the option of charging you to process it and have up to 40 days to get the info requeste to you-parts of which may legitimately be redacted.

BTW this kind of request would be pointless under FOI as any info that can identify third parties will be redacted (even though you know who was there etc.)

The ICO are very slow to deal with complaints so if you need info in a hurry they won't help (assuming you are working to a deadline).

I disagree that the request would be pointless under FoI. As I have already said, public bodies are required to treat any FoI request as a DPA request if that is more appropriate.

I would also disagree that information that can identify third parties will necessarily be redacted under an FoI request. Personal information (address, phone number, etc.) will be redacted but the fact that someone was at a meeting will generally not fall under that heading. Of course, some public bodies are a little over-enthusiastic when it comes to redacting information.

Well it's gone in as a DPA request now. I'm still horrified to think that both another county's admissions expert and a solicitor think that the information, when I do eventually get it, will be heavily altered/censored.

I told the Head that I looked forward to receiving the as soon as possible and certainly info within 15 school days, as is (from what I read briefly online last night specifically wrt to applications to schools) my right in law. I hope I've got it right or I'll look a fool - nothing new there - and far worse, even less clued up than they are!

Saw my GP today over another matter but this topic came up. His advice, which made me chuckle for the first time in a while was, "Don't you dare say 'fuck it' now, you're in the right, keep fighting!".

I didn't know GP's even knew the term "fuck it"! :o

And, I came home to find a letter from the LGO, which contained a reference number and advised me that the matter has been sent to a specific office where it will be considered and I should be contacted again within 4 weeks. Hopefully the LA and school, who will also be contacted by the LGO it seems, will not want too much interest in their practices and so will back down.

The bugger is that they will not have received any information from the LGO before the Inclusion Manager and her colleague visit the Head today.

By the way, Admissions, could you please shed any light on what the job title, "Education officer" means in proper English? I'm intrigued as to what matey does and why he/she is going to be at this morning's meeting.

Well I went to your LA's site and this is what the LA Education Officer does

The Education Officer team works with schools on management and operational matter, providing advice, guidance and support on complex inter-related issues. The team is available to support the whole school community ? staff, governors, pupils, parents and the wider community - as appropriate.

The team is a well qualified and highly experienced unit comprising 3 officers with senior teaching experience (including 2 ex secondary headteachers) and an officer with a strong business consultancy background. They are managed by a Head of Service with 26 years local government background, all of which has been in schools? facing work. The work of the team has been consistently highly commended by schools.

Outcomes often include:

■enhanced well being of pupils and staff
■clear plans and improved management
■improved school effectiveness
■improved communication with staff, parents, governors and local communities
■improved partnership working between schools and LA services, other agencies and organisations to support children and families.
Education Officers support ALL schools with the following:
■Safeguarding issues including: allegations against staff, work with the Local Safeguarding Children Board, safer recruitment training.
■Work with high level contact schools and partnership working around vulnerable children.
■Provision of guidance on Business Continuity Planning (including support during national or local emergencies such as swine flu).
Advice, guidance and support from the team are also available to LA schools and non LA schools that buy back services. The team will provide support for a wide range of management and operational issues which might include:

■Management advice: provision of a professional sounding board and support for head teachers facing complex issues: community issues; guidance and informed discussion on working within procedural and legal frameworks; support for policy development; support in developing strategies that will strengthen the competencies of the senior management team and staff in responding to issues; investigative work on behalf of schools; mediation.
■Complaints: prevention, conciliation, mediation and support for Headteachers; governors, parents and carers; provision of advice and guidance on complaints to parents, young people and members of the public.
■Safeguarding: named senior link officer for allegations; confidential advice to schools; provision of a conduit for whistle blowing; training and support on safeguarding and allegations; co-ordination between school, police, press and PR and other partner agencies; site security review and recommendations; support on some safeguarding elements of Ofsted inspections.
■Emergency management: front-line support and guidance from a senior officer in emergencies and critical incidents; access to ?Managing a Critical Incident? and ?Business Continuity Planning for Schools? guidance, including case studies and model plans; free training on writing and exercising emergency plans; access to 24 hour critical incident helpline; a critical incident officer to assemble an appropriate team of education professionals trained in trauma management and psychological support; advice on working with local communities, media and partners during critical incidents.
■Communication: publishing and maintenance of advice and guidance for schools through the education portal; weekly newsletter to schools providing updates on guidance, training, events and opportunities; provision of consultation opportunities; signposting to other LA services.
■Headteacher Wellbeing: training and support to assist senior management in meeting statutory duty of care; support to improve retention and recruitment of senior management team; ad-hoc support to Headteachers in challenging circumstances.
■The Education Helpline: provides advice and guidance to Headteachers, school staff and parents on a range of issues. This ranges from support on school management issues to general advice and guidance on a broad range of education-related topics.
■Community support: mediation with members of the community; community cohesion advice and guidance; advice on working with local communities.
■Support and mentoring for NQTs: provide named confidant for NQTs; meet statutory responsibility for duty of care of NQTS.
■Support to Headteacher Groups: support to Cambridge Primary Heads and Cambridge Secondary Heads to ensure LA link to, and strong relationships with, headteachers; consultation with heads groups on LA strategic plans and objectives: support for inter-school relationships.

Or the alternate explanation they just go and have a meeting at schools to pass the time of day! At a guess I would say they are going to hold the Inclusion Manager's hand as they have proved to be so useless and try and get the school to realise their responsibilities.

Well done Admission! Where on earth did you find that? I searched hard but with no luck.

I get it now.., but if Cambs CC wanted to explain that the position is all about damage limitation, why didn't they save ink and just say so?! :o

I think that part of the problem I face is that firstly, the Inclusion Manager has only just taken up the post, covering for maternity leave, and was prior to this a Locality Manager and not an IM secondly that LAs don't like to admit to being in the wrong and would rather continue to be in denial.

I didn't hear from the Inc Manager yesterday, following that morning's meeting with the Head, not that this now comes as any surprise. Normally I'd say that no news is good news, but on this occasion I suspect that this is far from the case.

We have an answer.

And I am not happy.

"The Head outlined to us his reservations about DD attending the
school regarding the risk she might pose to other students and to staff.
We discussed the fact that she has an entitlement to another mainstream
school place and that the authority could direct the school but would
always prefer that such action should be a last resort.

The Head's view is that he would want DD to have a period of
time in Alternative Provision to allow time for a risk assessment to be
carried out and for staff from the school to work alongside EOTAS staff to
prepare her for a successful integration to the school.
During this time DD would be dual registered at the school and
EOTAS and the school would fund the placement. This would be in line with
the way the Authority and schools have often previously worked together
to support integration of permanently excluded students and is a
strategy which the school have used successfully in the past

This would be a considerable financial commitment for the school, but the Head felt it would be the most appropriate way forward and in
DDs best interests as she moves towards the important stage of
preparing for Key Stage 4."

So, they want to put her emotional and mental health, which is imho fragile, at risk in a veritable dumping ground of a PRU do they? With all the associated hell that DD1 and I will suffer as soon as she is bullied there.

If she goes and is bullied and can't cope, as I can almost guarantee will happen, I will have no option but to pull her out. In doing that I have no recourse with this mainstream school WHICH HAS ALREADY OFFERED HER A PLACE AND INTERVIEWED US ILLEGALLY!

I think I am going to respond by saying that I would want a risk assessment carried out for the benefit of DD2 before I ever considered their "EOTAS Provision", AKA a Pupil Referral Unit.

Am now going to forward this to my MP and the LGO.

Still fuming...

Hang on a moment... the fecker has had since 21st September to worry about a risk assessment!

Should he not have mentioned the need then!

Besides, for all her problems, DD is NOT a risk to them.